National Security Bill

Debate between Priti Patel and Julian Lewis

2nd reading
Monday 6th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

It is certainly encouraging to hear such sombre but sensible contributions from both senior Front Benchers in agreement on the basis for the Bill.

To respond briefly to the question posed by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) on whether there is an oversight arrangement for special forces—no, there is not. If Parliament were ever to have such an arrangement, it would probably need to be on the model of the ISC, but we are not putting in a bid for that role unless anyone proposes proportionately to increase the resources on which the Committee depends to do its already quite substantial agenda of tasks.

Almost 20 years ago—in 2004, to be precise—the Intelligence and Security Committee first recommended the introduction of a new Official Secrets Act, recognising the constantly developing and evolving dangers posed to the United Kingdom by hostile state actors. That was almost a decade prior to our 2013 report, “Foreign involvement in the Critical National Infrastructure”—Cm. 8629, if Members want to look it up—which eventually led to the National Security and Investment Act 2021, so this Government undoubtedly deserve credit for tackling at least some of the unfinished business begun by the ISC.

As in the case of the National Security and Investment Act, unfortunately today’s proposals—while taking significant steps in the right direction—still fall short in significant respects. Given the complexity of the issues addressed in the Bill, rigorous parliamentary scrutiny is essential. Not every piece of major legislation can be processed by means of a Committee of the whole House, but where it is proposed to add a major new element to a Bill after Second Reading, the whole House must have an alternative opportunity adequately to debate it.

The National Security Bill was expected to encompass three principal elements. The first is to modernise the offence of espionage and provide the police, as well as the security and intelligence agencies, with appropriate new powers and capabilities. This the Bill clearly undertakes, with its substantial proposed reforms of the 1911 to 1939 Official Secrets Acts, which we broadly welcome. The second should be to reform, or to repeal and replace, the Official Secrets Act 1989, which deals with the unauthorised disclosure of sensitive information, whether by public servants or by others, such as journalists, who are not employed by the Government. There is no trace of that in the present Bill, nor any apparent intention to incorporate the topic later.

Finally, one searches in vain for the long-heralded and much-anticipated inclusion of a foreign influence registration scheme—long advocated by the ISC and others, including the Foreign Affairs Committee—requiring individuals to declare, in a Government-managed register, any activities that they undertake for or on behalf of a foreign state. That is what we are told will be introduced by means of an amendment to the Bill, presumably in Committee or on Report. I heard the Home Secretary say earlier that it would be in Committee, which is good, but it could conceivably have been introduced even later, in the Upper House. I am glad to see the Home Secretary firmly shaking her head and ruling that out. As things stand, however, we cannot even say, with the late, great Meat Loaf, that “Two Out of Three Ain’t Bad”, given that one of the three has yet to appear, and another—the urgently needed reform of the 1989 Act—is not going to happen at all.

It is odd, to put it mildly, that such an important component as the foreign influence registration scheme has not been incorporated in the Bill from the outset. The proposal to introduce it by means of a later amendment can only fuel suspicions that the Bill was published, for reasons unknown, before it had fully matured; or that the plan for the scheme had been dropped, then belatedly revived—the Home Secretary is shaking her head, which, again, is good; or that the Government are perfectly well aware of the details of the scheme that they intend to introduce, but wish to undermine or weaken parliamentary scrutiny by introducing it after the Second Reading debate is over, so that the Commons as a whole cannot decide on it before the Committee stage at the earliest.

Such suspicions could be at least partially dispelled by the Government’s agreeing that a Committee of the whole House will examine the Bill at the next stage of its journey through the Commons, and that plenty of time will be allocated for us all to examine the amendment on establishing a foreign influence registration scheme at the earliest opportunity. I will happily give way to a ministerial intervention now, offering an undertaking to that effect.

[Priti Patel]

indicated assent.

[Dr Lewis]

I am receiving indications that I may hear something in the summing-up speech, so I shall live in hope.

As I wish to leave scope for other members of the ISC to drill down into the detail of all three areas on which the Bill ought to be focusing, I shall confine myself to just a few comments on each. First—as we have said—we warmly welcome the repeal of the Official Secrets Acts of 1911 to 1939, with their references to century-old concepts of data targets, such as “sketches” and “plans”, which have long been superseded in the digital age. The new espionage offence created by clause 1 should enable the intelligence and security agencies more effectively to combat hostile state action in a world that has undergone a technological revolution in the modern era.

Clause 2 is a worthwhile attempt to protect valuable trade secrets, although we feel that there are issues of complexity and breadth of definition which will require simplification if this new system is to succeed. Clause 3 is strongly to be supported, both for criminalising the giving of assistance to a foreign intelligence service and for empowering the agencies and the police legitimately to unravel the hostile networks involved. Clause 12 creates a new offence of sabotage, at home or overseas: causing damage to vital UK assets or infrastructure, whether intentionally or recklessly. Clause 13 introduces an offence of foreign interference, but only for conduct that involves an intention to have a negative impact on the UK, for or on behalf of the foreign power in question. We suggest that it be broadened to cover those who behave recklessly, even if an intention to aid a foreign adversary cannot be proven.

Secondly, the failure radically to reform the Official Secrets Act 1989 leaves in place a requirement to demonstrate that actual harm has been caused by a civil servant or someone outside Government service when publishing classified information. However, the act of disclosing and specifying what harm has been done will often compound the problem and increase the damage; some prosecutions thus have to be dropped in order to prevent such further harm. Although the Law Commission has offered recommendations to cater for disclosures made genuinely in the public interest, those recommendations cannot even be considered other than in the context of the repeal, replacement or at least root-and-branch reform of the 1989 Act.

Public Order Bill

Debate between Priti Patel and Julian Lewis

2nd reading
Monday 23rd May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

To put this into context, I remind the House that Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services has argued that stop-and-search powers would be an effective tool for the police in this case. Stop and search is a critical tool in policing and, as I highlighted, is absolutely crucial when it comes to saving lives and preventing the loss of life.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I am a little concerned about the point raised by the right hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), because many, if not most, of these protesters feel that their cause is the most important thing in the world—in fact, some of them think that they are saving the world. If, therefore, they can give excuses of that sort by way of a reasonable explanation of what they are doing, is not the legislation leaving a loophole? In particular, I have in mind some previous cases where anti-nuclear protesters broke into military bases and damaged military equipment, and certain courts felt that they should be acquitted because their motives were to try to prevent nuclear war, even if, in fact, it has the opposite effect.

Ukraine

Debate between Priti Patel and Julian Lewis

Tuesday 1st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

There are a number of measures, and it is not just about Border Force—this is a conversation I had with the Ukrainian ambassador today—because of people without documents that can be verified, and all sorts of issues. We are trying to use both systems, out of country but in country as well. We have an operation in Lviv, in particular, trying to verify the data of those who are trying to leave, and match it against our systems. Quite a lot of work is taking place on this, but the hon. and learned Lady should provide me with details of the case she mentioned, and we will absolutely take it on board and pick it up.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

These welcome efforts will put huge extra strain on the Home Secretary’s Department. May I urge her to bear in mind the situation of those other refugees who fled from Afghanistan to Pakistan, and who have been granted entry visas to this country but are stuck there because they entered Pakistan undocumented in an emergency? The Pakistani authorities could well grab them and send them back to a terrible fate in Kabul. Will she reach out to the Ministry of Defence to set in place safe extraction measures for those people who we have agreed can come here, but who cannot show themselves in Pakistan because our so-called ally is too close to the Taliban?

[Priti Patel]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that important point. The Afghanistan resettlement and the plight of Afghan refugees absolutely has not ended. As Members of the House will know, we welcomed more than 20,000 Afghan refugees, and the Minister for Afghan Resettlement, who is sitting on the Bench beside me now, is in constant contact with the MOD, and particularly with our Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office partners in Pakistan. There absolutely are challenges, and we cannot just move from one international crisis to another. We must continue to work on this issue, and that is a whole-Government effort. We are using the FCDO and the MOD to deal specifically with those cases.

Foreign Interference: Intelligence and Security

Debate between Priti Patel and Julian Lewis

Monday 17th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to Dr Julian Lewis, Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will undoubtedly be aware of the important distinction between agents of influence or covert propagandists, and espionage agents or spies. In her statement she referred to new national security legislation. In precisely what areas does she anticipate that new legislation interfering in the activities of agents of influence and of espionage agents?

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend has made an important point. In my statement I also alluded to the fact that, when it comes to interference and influence, there are so many facets, including in commercial and economic life. Those are the strands that we are pulling together—in fact the Security Minister, other colleagues across Government and I are developing that legislation so that we can close down that permissive environment and space where, frankly, there has been too much exploitation in the past.

English Channel Small Boats Incident

Debate between Priti Patel and Julian Lewis

Thursday 25th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

First and foremost, there is a great deal of work. I should emphasise that the right hon. Gentleman’s comments are presented in a light that is actually quite unfair and unreflective of the work that takes place across Government with multilateral organisations and the global situation. Humanitarian crises lead to displacement and climate crisis leads to displacement—that is a fact of life. None of this is new; it has existed for decades and decades. That is why the international community comes together, whether that is in convening power through the European Union, through the UN or through multilateral systems. That is exactly how it works.

The reality is that it is not the case that everyone who has come to this country illegally, whether on the back of a lorry or in a small boat, historically, is an asylum seeker. When they have their rights exhausted and we try to remove them, there are many barriers to removal. That is effectively what the Nationality and Borders Bill will address; I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to support the Bill.

Migrants are not just in the hands of people smugglers. They are travelling through safe countries where there are functioning asylum seeking systems and where they could claim asylum. That is something that all international partners should support and work to achieve.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Did not the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) put her finger on the problem when she referred to Afghanistan, where there are many legitimate asylum seekers who deserve to come here? Is not the problem that if we have the fairest asylum seeking system in the world, a queue will form and that there will always be some people who are not prepared to queue, but want to jump to the head of the queue? Therefore, is not the only way to deter that to show, not that they will not get across the channel or that getting across the channel is terribly dangerous, but that if they do get across the channel and if they have jumped the queue, they will be returned to another country? How can the Home Secretary secure that?

[Priti Patel]

I think I have spoken in this House a few times about bilateral returns agreements and the difficulties with getting them. I state again for the record that I have today put on the table another offer to my French counterpart, Minister Darmanin, that I am very happy to discuss returns agreements with him in the usual sense, but also to look at family reunions and unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. We do not want children—kids—and family members in the hands of traffickers. Having established routes and working with our partners to establish returns agreements is absolutely the right thing to do.

I have stated many times with regard to EU countries that the matter sits with the Commission; it is a Commission competence. There is a great deal of frustration among EU member states about the issue, which is why I continue to pursue my discussions with the European Commissioner for Home Affairs.

Channel Crossings in Small Boats

Debate between Priti Patel and Julian Lewis

Monday 22nd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

I will be very happy to drop the hon. Gentleman a line with the full facts about the amendment, rather than responding to the rhetoric that he has just given.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Like the Home Secretary and many other Members of this House, I am the descendant of immigrants who came to this country legally. I am campaigning for more immigrants to be brought here legally who are at risk in Afghanistan.

What I cannot understand is how people who come here illegally—particularly those who, having done that, commit very serious crimes—cannot then be deported because they apparently have absolute rights conferred by various conventions. Most rights are capable of being overridden in extreme circumstances. If we are signed up to such conventions, is it not about time we reviewed them?

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend makes some important points. First, as a country we always stand by our international obligations when it comes to people who are fleeing persecution and in need of refuge. That is what the Nationality and Borders Bill does and why we are creating safe and legal routes. My right hon. Friend will be familiar with much of our work that has taken place thus far with, for example, British nationals overseas—people from Hong Kong—and the work that is taking place on Afghanistan.

The removal of people with no legal right to be in the United Kingdom and all rights exhausted is at the heart of the new plan for immigration and the Nationality and Borders Bill, because too many last-minute claims come through immigration courts and tribunals and prevent the Government from removing people who have no legal right to be here. They include foreign national offenders, including rapists and murderers—people who have committed awful and abhorrent crimes on the streets of the United Kingdom. I have to say it is quite telling that there is a great deal of lobbying from the Labour party to actually stand by many of these foreign national offenders and keep them in our country.

Security Update

Debate between Priti Patel and Julian Lewis

Wednesday 20th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments and, I must say, for the joint and collective recognition that we have a shared responsibility in how we conduct ourselves and how we act. If I may say so, that has been reflected in the way in which, organisationally, everyone across the House has come together—from the support given by you, Mr Speaker and your team, and of course the Lord Speaker at the other end of Parliament, to the parliamentary policing support and the teams that we all depend on for MPs’ security in our own constituencies.

There has been an incredible effort nationwide, and I want to pay tribute to all police operatives under Operation Bridger for the work they have been doing. As ever, my thanks go to the intelligence agencies, the security services, JTAC and counter-terrorism policing. The work has been quite remarkable—it really has.

The right hon. Gentleman made a number of points, and to be fair they are points that we touched on in the Chamber on Monday. It is very sombre that we are having this statement today after the terrible tragedy that took place on Friday. It is also a recognition of the fact that we want our democracy to be defended and, rightly so. We want to conduct our business in the open and transparent way that all Members have successfully done over so many generations.

On that note, that is exactly why, through the agencies and Government structures, we have stood up the wider work of the defending democracy team in the Cabinet Office, which will look at other elected representatives. The right hon. Gentleman touched on the issue of councillors and other elected representatives, as I did in the House on Monday. We all collectively acknowledge and know—many of us have been in some of these roles previously in public life—that there are public servants across society and our country who, day in, day out, do a great deal of work in representing their communities and, importantly, in delivering public services. They have been subject to abuse, for example, and that is part of the wider work taking place.

The wider review taking place on policing is all linked to Operation Bridger, and rightly so, because that is the structure that has been set up, and is effective. We are constantly working to enhance that. Our role is to close down any perceived gaps in security, or even risks for MPs and wider assessments that may materialise. Of course, again, that is a collective effort.

My next point—and I am sure that all hon. and right hon. Members will appreciate the context in which I make this remark—is that it is not for us to publicly and openly discuss our security measures. We protect ourselves by working with the agencies and police. We act in a responsible way on the basis of the advice and guidance we are given, and, I should add, the support that we are given, as Members of this House to enable us to function and do our jobs as elected representatives. I would just like to emphasise that point to all colleagues, and colleagues will understand the context in which I make that remark.

Finally, all Members should be aware that through your good offices, Mr Speaker, and the support teams you have, you and I will continue to keep all Members of this House updated. Of course, there are protective security measures and packages available to Members, which we will be sharing, and we will once again be reiterating the support that is available to all Members.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

rose—

[Dr Lewis]

May I draw particular attention to the wise words of the Home Secretary in what I think was her penultimate point about the discussion of security measures that MPs decide they will or will not take? Most right hon. and hon. Members have ideas about ways in which their security can be improved. It is very unwise—is it not, Mr Speaker?—for us to state what those ideas are in public. I am sure that, like me, every Member present in the Chamber was contacted by local and national media asking, “How are you going to proceed in future? Are you going to continue with face-to-face surgeries? What changes will you make to your arrangements?” Does the Home Secretary agree that it is quite inappropriate for the media to ask such questions, and it is quite counterproductive, and indeed self-endangering, for us to answer them?

[Priti Patel]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his observation and comments, as well for as his question. This has been a sombre week for all of us in this House —it really has. We have lost colleagues through the most appalling attacks, first Jo Cox, and then Sir David Amess. It is not for us to be publicly discussing security measures at all. As the House has already heard me say, I urge all hon. Members, for the sake of protecting the public, our staff and our functioning democracy, to respect some of the parameters that we are speaking about now. We must also respect the fact that, to carry on in our roles as elected representatives, we have to take advice that should not be in the public domain—advice that we listen to and that will effectively shape our own behaviours. That will lead to greater public protection from safeguarding and security. We all have a responsibility to follow the words of my right hon. Friend and be very conscientious about what we say when it comes to security.

Salisbury Incident 2018: Update

Debate between Priti Patel and Julian Lewis

Tuesday 21st September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments and for the reflective way in which he has responded to today’s statement. It is correct that the charging announcement is the result of the tireless work that has been undertaken over the past few years, and of the ongoing work by policing, counter-terrorism policing, security partners and our intelligence agencies. I think that everyone in the House is fully reflective of that. Today’s statement and the charges are a sobering reminder of the threats that our country has been exposed to.

In answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s questions, first and foremost, the use of the Novichok nerve agent on British soil was an utterly reckless act. Of course, all our thoughts remain with those whose lives have been changed or lost. This was not a rogue operation but a shameless and deliberate attack, as we all recognise, and it has concentrated the whole of Government in how we not only respond to but prepare against such attacks to protect our country, our domestic homeland, in every single aspect of our national security work in the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Home Office, the national security apparatus and the entire UK intelligence community.

I reassure the House and the right hon. Gentleman that our resourcing is always there. Along with the whole-system approach, the resourcing effectively governs the entire UK intelligence community covering cyber, hostile state activity, the diplomatic aspects and the Magnitsky sanctions. We have applied our diplomatic levers internationally, working with our NATO allies and counterparts, as the right hon. Gentleman and I have both mentioned, in the expulsion of former intelligence officers.

None of that changes. We continue with absolute resolve and resolute determination to do everything possible to protect British citizens and our domestic homeland. Naturally, on the back of today’s announcement, there will be further investigations and, inevitably, more law enforcement work with our allies. I assure the House that all that work is under way, as all hon. and right hon. Members would expect.

The right hon. Gentleman also touched on forthcoming legislation against hostile activity, as well as the report of the Intelligence and Security Committee. We will update the House in due course, and I hope he will respect that there is cross-Government work on the recommendations. We have already consulted on future legislation, and there is further work taking place. We will, of course, share further information on the national security element with the House, the right hon. Gentleman and other colleagues.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I am sure the whole House welcomes the fact that the Home Secretary has chosen to come here today to volunteer this statement. It should not come as a surprise to anyone that the links firmly associating these murderous activities with the Russian state have been made clear. Does my right hon. Friend recall that, a few days after the death of Alexander Litvinenko in November 2006, the BBC published an account of how the upper House of the Russian Parliament, the Federation Council, had adopted a new law in the previous July that the BBC said

“formally permits the extra-judicial killings abroad of those Moscow accuses of ‘extremism’”?

As we know, one of the suspected killers later became a Russian Member of Parliament.

In the light of this brazenness and shamelessness, does my right hon. Friend agree that we ought to be very careful not only of Russians who come to this country with poison but of Russians who come to this country with funds with which they hope to make investments that allow them to get a handhold on our critical national infrastructure, which we should resist at all costs?

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We know that the Russian state targets its perceived enemies at home and abroad, and we have seen far too much of that. We will always continue to work closely with the relevant law enforcement agencies to protect individuals. He is also right to highlight critical national infrastructure and other vulnerabilities, which is exactly what our future legislation will aim to address.

Public Order

Debate between Priti Patel and Julian Lewis

Monday 15th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

I am disappointed with the tone of the hon. Gentleman’s question. I refer him to what I have said already. The purpose of the review and of the Government’s work is to drive actions and outcomes and to address many of the core issues that hon. Members across the House have been raising. These are legitimate issues that we should collectively be working together to address, and that is what the Government and the Prime Minister will be doing.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Will the Home Secretary join me in praising the action of Patrick Hutchinson, who rescued a white demonstrator from the other side of the riot, as it were, because he did not wish him to be injured and thus the Black Lives Matter movement to be discredited, and will she also endorse what I think I heard the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) say, which is that trying to impose the values of the modern era on people and personalities from a past age is rather irrelevant compared with making sure we examine how people behave towards the black community today?

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend is right. I think all Members will join me in saying that the gentleman he refers to represents the very best of Britain. Our country needs more people like him. His actions this weekend spoke volumes. I pay tribute to him and the way he conducted himself and stepped in. On my right hon. Friend’s point about coming together and statues, I would say that we learn from our past so that we can have a stronger, more resilient and more secure future, and that is absolutely right.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Priti Patel and Julian Lewis

Monday 8th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend makes a vital important point. I have seen for myself, working with refuge and other third-party organisations in the domestic abuse space, the amazing work that they do in terms of internet safety within refuges. We must always put first and foremost the safety of the victims in the environments within which they are living. He is right to highlight the fact that without the internet, too many people, including children, are cut off, and that is a hindrance to their development and wellbeing. I will absolutely take his suggestion away with me and ensure that as we build greater internet safety provisions in refuges for domestic victims, we also think about what more we can do to give them the right kind of safeguards with the right provisions.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

What steps her Department is taking to stop migrants crossing the English Channel illegally.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Priti Patel and Julian Lewis

Monday 10th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

When a secular psychopath threatens to run amok and kill indiscriminately, we treat him as criminally insane and detain him indefinitely in a high-security psychiatric unit. Why do we not do the same for a religious psychopath who threatens to do exactly the same thing?

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend raises very important issues. The Government will address them in tomorrow’s emergency legislation and the forthcoming counter- terrorism Bill, which will consider appropriate sentences for people who seek to do a great deal of harm to our country.

Continuous At-Sea Deterrent

Debate between Priti Patel and Julian Lewis

Wednesday 10th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dr Lewis]

I pay tribute to the people who work at Aldermaston in my right hon. Friend’s constituency for all that they contribute to the maintenance of our nuclear deterrent capability. Not only do I agree with him, but he has led me nicely back to the central theme of my narrative, which was to try to set out for the House the five main military arguments in favour of retaining our independent deterrent, the first of which is precisely the point that he has just made. Future military threats and conflicts will be no more predictable than those that engulfed us throughout the 20th century. That is the overriding justification for preserving armed forces in peacetime as a national insurance policy. No one knows what enemies might confront us during the next 30 to 50 years, but it is highly probable that at least some of them will be armed with mass-destruction weapons.

The second argument is that it is not the weapons themselves that we have to fear but the nature of the regimes that possess them. Whereas democracies are generally reluctant to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear dictatorships—although they did use them against Japan in 1945—the reverse is not true. Think, for example, what the situation would have been in 1982 if a non-nuclear Britain had faced an Argentina in possession of even a few tactical nuclear bombs and the means of delivering them. There would have been no question of our being able to retake the Falkland Islands in that conflict.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

This is such an important point. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when we speak about freedom, our independent at-sea deterrent has been one of the most important factors in securing freedom and democracy around the world?